| Venue: | CA Ct. App. |
| Facts: | Jenner has an epileptic seizure while driving home from work. He is medicated, and seemingly responsible about the condition. He smashes through the wall, injuring Mrs. Hammontree. |
| Posture: | Trial court refuses the motion for summary judgment, and the jury found for the defendant. Plaintiffs appeal. |
| Issue: | The Hammontrees want "absolute liability" here, as though this were a defective product issue. Is that a good idea? |
| Holding: | No, the court was correct in denying summary judgment for the plaintiffs. Affirmed. |
| Rule: | A manufacturer is liable for placing articles on the market which will be used without checking for defects, and they have defects that cause injuries. That rule doesn't apply here. |
| Reasoning: | The policy behind the absolute liability rule is that manufactureres should bear the cost of defective products. That doesn't pertain to this situation. If the legislature wants to implement a policy like this, it will need to specify carefully, since fact-based decisions of this sort will lead to uncertanty. Plus, come on, this would just be plain unfair: the guy had no reason to think he'd have a seizure. |
| Dicta: | |